Leading authors including Sir Tom Stoppard, William Boyd and John Carey have
criticised court judgment as posing a 'significant threat to freedom of
expression'

Leading authors have expressed their “grave concern” at a court ruling which has prevented a writer from publishing a book dealing with the sexual abuse he suffered as a child.

The author’s ex-wife has obtained a temporary injunction stopping the memoir's release until the issue has been decided at trial. She argued that reading it would cause their 11 year-old son, who suffers from a number of disabilities, severe psychological harm.

Now in a significant intervention, some of the country’s most prominent writers, including Sir Tom Stoppard, the British playwright, and Colin Thubron, the best-selling travel writer and novellist, have criticised the judgment as posing a “significant threat to freedom of expression”.

In a letter to this newspaper, the group argues the publication of the book was in the public interest as previous interviews given by the author about his abuse had led to the arrest of one of his attackers.

“The Court of Appeal’s injunction last week preventing publication of a memoir poses a significant threat to freedom of expression,” the authors write in association with English PEN, which works to defend and promote free expression.

Related Articles

“… we are gravely concerned about the impact of this judgment on the freedom to read and write in the UK. The public is being denied the opportunity of reading an enlightening memoir, while publishers, authors and journalists may face censorship on similar grounds in the future.”

The judgement has already alarmed freedom of speech campaigners and has been described by publishers as deeply disturbing.

The author, who cannot be named, is described in court papers as a “talented young performing artist” who has achieved a “high degree of distinction in his chosen career despite having had a tormented childhood” during which he was sexually abused at school.

He was left traumatised by his abuse and suffered episodes of severe mental illness but was said to have since brought his experiences together in “an artistic and insightful way”.

In December 2013, he sent a first draft of the semi-autobiographical book to his publisher. Some of it was then leaked to the mother of his child and she subsequently sought an injunction, fearing for her child’s wellbeing.

The application for an injunction was initially refused by Mr Justice Bean but the mother appealed.

Her lawyers argued that the book constituted a misuse of private information and that publication of it was negligent by the father.

The appeal, heard by a panel led by Lady Justice Arden, said that on these two points, the appeal could not succeed, as the information was about the father, not the son, and because it would be “wholly inappropriate” for parents to be liable for damages over parenting decisions that they must make each day.

However, she said the mother’s third ground - that publication of the book could be seen as intentionally inflicting mental suffering - was sufficient to secure an injunction until a trial.

The case centres on a piece of Victorian case law, known as Wilkinson v Downton and described by Lady Justice Arden as “well-known but seldom used principle”.

The case, from 1897, first recognised the tort of “intentional infliction of mental shock”. It came after a man decided to play a practical joke on a woman and tell her that her husband had been seriously injured in an accident.

However the joke backfired and the woman became ill with shock, needing medical treatment. She sued and a judged ruled that she had a valid claim for intentional infliction of mental shock, and awarded her compensation.

The boy, who also cannot be named, suffers from “significant disabilities” including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Asperger’s, Dysgraphia and Dyspraxia.

A child psychologist has said that, in her opinion, “no child should read the graphic description of the way” his father suffered. She said that even though it would not be published in the country where he now lives with his mother following his parents’ divorce in 2009, the boy was “computer savvy” and could find it online.

Another psychologist said the work would have a “catastrophic effect” on the child’s “self-esteem” and cause him “enduring psychological harm” as he would “view himself responsible for some of his father’s psychological distress”.

However the author said he often discussed difficult topics with his son in the past.

In his witness statement, he said: “I accept that knowing what happened to me could upset or embarrass him but I do not accept that it will be harmful if dealt with in the right way."

The book has been written and printed but not distributed – it was due to be published in August. Copies are currently being stored in warehouses in the UK.

A date for trial has been fixed for April 2015. But Tamsin Allen, the author’s solicitor, said he was considering asking for permission to appeal the decision at the Supreme Court.